Jam v. International Finance Corporation, 442 F.Supp.3d 162

Background

IFC financed the Tata Mundra coal‑fired power plant in Gujarat, India, providing a $450 million loan to Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd.; the loan incorporated an Environmental and Social Action Plan and IFC Performance Standards.
Plaintiffs are local fishermen, farmers, a trade union, and a village government, alleging property, health, and livelihood harms from the plant’s operation (thermal pollution, groundwater contamination, coal dust, loss of fishing access).
Plaintiffs sued IFC for negligence, negligent supervision, nuisance, trespass, and third‑party breach of contract, claiming IFC negligently appraised, financed, supervised, and monitored the project.
Procedural history: District court initially dismissed based on IOIA immunity; D.C. Circuit affirmed; Supreme Court reversed in Jam, holding international organizations have FSIA‑style (not absolute) immunity and remanded for application of FSIA exceptions.
On remand the court examined whether the FSIA commercial‑activity exception applies (i.e., whether the suit is "based upon" commercial activity "carried on" or "performed" in the U.S.) and found the gravamen was IFC’s alleged failure to ensure proper design, construction, operation, and supervision in India.
Holding: Plaintiffs failed to show the gravamen involved conduct "carried on" in the United States (transactions/approvals in D.C. and disbursements in U.S. dollars were insufficient); IFC retains FSIA immunity and the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IFC is immune under IOIA/FSIA or subject to the FSIA commercial‑activity exception	The suit falls within FSIA commercial‑activity exception because IFC’s lending, approvals, and related acts occurred in the U.S.	IOIA ties immunity to FSIA; even under FSIA IFC is immune because the core wrongful conduct occurred in India	Exception does not apply; IFC immune under FSIA and suit dismissed
What is the gravamen (core) of the complaint and where did it occur?	Gravamen is IFC’s lending/approval decisions in Washington, D.C.	Gravamen is the tortious conduct that actually injured plaintiffs—design, construction, operation, and IFC’s supervisory omissions in India	Gravamen is IFC’s alleged failure to ensure compliance/supervision as to the project in India (not U.S.)
Do approvals, disbursements in U.S. dollars, or CAO responses from D.C. create "substantial contact" with the U.S.?	Those U.S.‑based acts (board approval, dollar disbursements, headquarters’ approvals of responses) tie the suit to U.S. commercial activity	Such acts relate to the loan transaction but not to the core supervisory failures that caused the harm in India	These contacts are insufficiently substantial to render the gravamen "carried on" in the U.S.
Did IFC waive immunity	Plaintiffs contend waiver applies	IFC argues no waiver; suits like this do not confer a corresponding benefit to IFC and would intrude on core operations	Court rejects waiver argument (consistent with prior decision and D.C. Circuit reasoning)

Key Cases Cited

Jam v. Int’l Fin. Corp., 139 S. Ct. 759 (2019) (IOIA immunity measured by FSIA; remand for FSIA analysis)
OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 136 S. Ct. 390 (2015) (gravamen inquiry focuses on conduct that forms the basis of the claim, not mere causal chain)
Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993) (commercial acts leading to injury abroad may not form the basis of the suit)
Phoenix Consulting, Inc. v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (plaintiff bears initial burden to allege facts bringing case within FSIA exception when defendant challenges legal sufficiency)
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (burden allocation for FSIA exceptions)
Crystallex Int’l Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 251 F. Supp. 3d 758 (D. Del. 2017) (gravamen may be defendant’s directing act even when related transfers occurred in U.S.)
Callejo v. Bancomer, S.A., 764 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1985) (focus gravamen on the defendant’s act complained of, not separate sovereign acts)
Anglo‑Iberia Underwriting Mgmt. v. P.T. Jamsostek, 600 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2010) (negligent supervision claims are based on supervisory acts/omissions)
Devengoechea v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 889 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2018) (breach‑of‑contract gravamen is the specific failure that injured plaintiff)
Mendaro v. World Bank, 717 F.2d 610 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (waiver of immunity requires a corresponding benefit; suits implicating core operations are disfavored)